Abstract

Immigration medicine and the work carried out by Panel Physicians within the Canadian immigration system give rise to ethically troublesome practices and consequences. In this analysis in three parts, we explore the context of the immigration medical examination, characterize the observed and potential burdens and harms for immigrant and refugee applicants with HIV, and critically assess the possibilities for transforming immigration medical practices and policy to reduce inequities. We use the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association and the Medical Ethics Manual of the World Medical Association to analyse six practices that fail to meet ethical expectations. This analysis opens up new lines of inquiry into the medico-administrative practices regulating immigration to Canada. It also extends knowledge about the functioning of immigration medical policy and the collection and uses of HIV-related health information. We argue that to reduce burdens and harms to prospective immigrants and refugees to Canada with HIV, changes must occur in how Citizenship and Immigration Canada asks Panel Physicians to work with these applicants. This argument is empirically informed by institutional ethnographic research results of the Canadian immigration system and its treatment of applicants with HIV